by Jack Pickett - London & Cornwall - October / November 2025
Gravity is not only determined by mass and distance. It also depends on how matter is distributed in any given situation. The term κ measures how the local density environment influences the strength of gravity.
Consider a kitten on a mattress. It will make no visible indentation on the mattress.
Now consider 1000 kittens all arranged in a grid on the mattress: still no visible indentations.
Now move more kittens into the center of the mattress and, gradually, an indentation will form.
Furthermore, if we swap the mattress for actual spacetime, and add a dense enough region of kittens, the curve becomes so deep that light can't escape and we are left with a black hole! (And kitten spaghetti...)
In Newtonian gravity the potential follows a strict inverse–square form. This assumes a uniform mass distribution. Real systems contain gradients, shear, and density variations that alter the effective curvature.
A small modification to the curvature term in the action,
introduces an exponential correction to the weak–field potential. The resulting effective potential takes the form
and the corresponding acceleration becomes
The parameter κ enters as the weak–field imprint of this geometric modification. It encodes how local structure modifies the effective curvature.
The geometric origin implies that κ depends on the local environment. Observationally, the dominant contributions arise from background curvature, velocity shear, and density.
κ₀ background curvature
kᵥ shear–response coefficient
∂v/∂r local velocity gradient
ρ density relative to ρ₀κ increases in regions with strong shear or enhanced density, and decreases in smooth or diffuse environments. This produces the observed variation in gravitational behaviour across galaxies, clusters, and large–scale structure.
For a deeper geometric intuition, consider κ in Clifford algebra Cl(1,3) — the language of spacetime rotations and oriented areas. In this picture, curvature generated by density gradients is represented by a bivector, an oriented plane element.
where:
eᵣ = unit radial direction (along r)
eᵨ = unit density gradient, ∇ρ / |∇ρ|This bivector B defines the plane in which radial paths react to structure. Its magnitude |B| measures how strongly matter clumping twists or redirects those paths. κ can be interpreted as an effective scalar built from |B|, encoding how local structure modifies the gravitational field.
This complements the f(R) derivation used above: exponential behaviour in modified gravity emerges naturally from geometric “wedges” in the Ricci curvature. Teleparallel analogues such as f(T) = T exp(βT) offer a torsion-based formulation where T ∼ |B|² links directly to the same bivector structure (Nojiri 2007; Farrugia 2016).
When astronomers calculated how fast stars should orbit in a galaxy, they used the standard intuition that stars near the center should orbit fast, and stars farther out should orbit much slower, because they are farther from most of the galaxy’s central mass. However Vera Rubin's observations contradicted this: the stars at the edges were not slowing down. They were moving just as fast as the stars near the center. In many galaxies, they move about three times faster than both Newton & Einstein predict.
Since κ adjusts gravity based on how matter is distributed, we can apply it directly to a real galaxy to see whether it reproduces the observed rotation speed:
v_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 2.0e41 / 8.0e20) ≈ 1.29e5 m/s ≈ 129 km/s 🛑v_κ = v_N * e^(κr/2) with κ ≈ 1.65e-21 → v_κ ≈ 129 km/s * e^((1.65e-21 * 8.0e20)/2) ≈ 250 km/s ✅To compare theory with rotation data, we derive κ directly from observations by taking the Newtonian speed from "baryonic" mass, compare to the observed speed, and solve for κ.
| Galaxy | radius (m) | Mass (kg) | κ (m⁻¹) | Newton predicts (m/s) | v_model (m/s) | v_obs (m/s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milky Way | 3.086e20 | 1.2e41 | 2.0196e-21κ ≈ (2 / 3.086e20) * ln(2.2e+5 / 1.61096e+5) ≈ 2.0196e-21 m^-1 | 🛑 161.1 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 1.2e41 / 3.086e20) ≈ 1.61096e+5 m/s | ✅ 220 km/sv_model ≈ 1.61096e+5 * exp((2.0196e-21 * 3.086e20)/2) ≈ 2.2e+5 m/s | 220 km/s |
| NGC 3198 | 9.26e20 | 1.0e41 | 1.43524e-21κ ≈ (2 / 9.26e20) * ln(1.65e+5 / 8.48961e+4) ≈ 1.43524e-21 m^-1 | 🛑 84.9 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 1.0e41 / 9.26e20) ≈ 8.48961e+4 m/s | ✅ 165 km/sv_model ≈ 8.48961e+4 * exp((1.43524e-21 * 9.26e20)/2) ≈ 1.65e+5 m/s | 165 km/s |
| NGC 2403 | 3.086e20 | 2.0e40 | 4.66074e-21κ ≈ (2 / 3.086e20) * ln(1.35e+5 / 6.57673e+4) ≈ 4.66074e-21 m^-1 | 🛑 65.77 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 2.0e40 / 3.086e20) ≈ 6.57673e+4 m/s | ✅ 135 km/sv_model ≈ 6.57673e+4 * exp((4.66074e-21 * 3.086e20)/2) ≈ 1.35e+5 m/s | 135 km/s |
| NGC 2903 | 3.703e20 | 6.0e40 | 3.53239e-21κ ≈ (2 / 3.703e20) * ln(2e+5 / 1.0399e+5) ≈ 3.53239e-21 m^-1 | 🛑 104 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 6.0e40 / 3.703e20) ≈ 1.0399e+5 m/s | ✅ 200 km/sv_model ≈ 1.0399e+5 * exp((3.53239e-21 * 3.703e20)/2) ≈ 2e+5 m/s | 200 km/s |
| NGC 925 | 4.63e20 | 6.0e40 | 9.17251e-22κ ≈ (2 / 4.63e20) * ln(1.15e+5 / 9.2999e+4) ≈ 9.17251e-22 m^-1 | 🛑 93 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 6.0e40 / 4.63e20) ≈ 9.2999e+4 m/s | ✅ 115 km/sv_model ≈ 9.2999e+4 * exp((9.17251e-22 * 4.63e20)/2) ≈ 1.15e+5 m/s | 115 km/s |
| NGC 5055 (M63) | 8.95e20 | 3.0e41 | 5.92716e-22κ ≈ (2 / 8.95e20) * ln(1.95e+5 / 1.49569e+5) ≈ 5.92716e-22 m^-1 | 🛑 149.6 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 3.0e41 / 8.95e20) ≈ 1.49569e+5 m/s | ✅ 195 km/sv_model ≈ 1.49569e+5 * exp((5.92716e-22 * 8.95e20)/2) ≈ 1.95e+5 m/s | 195 km/s |
| NGC 7331 | 1.08e21 | 4.0e41 | 7.83305e-22κ ≈ (2 / 1.08e21) * ln(2.4e+5 / 1.57221e+5) ≈ 7.83305e-22 m^-1 | 🛑 157.2 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 4.0e41 / 1.08e21) ≈ 1.57221e+5 m/s | ✅ 240 km/sv_model ≈ 1.57221e+5 * exp((7.83305e-22 * 1.08e21)/2) ≈ 2.4e+5 m/s | 240 km/s |
| NGC 6946 | 4.32e20 | 1.3e41 | 8.42427e-22κ ≈ (2 / 4.32e20) * ln(1.7e+5 / 1.41717e+5) ≈ 8.42427e-22 m^-1 | 🛑 141.7 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 1.3e41 / 4.32e20) ≈ 1.41717e+5 m/s | ✅ 170 km/sv_model ≈ 1.41717e+5 * exp((8.42427e-22 * 4.32e20)/2) ≈ 1.7e+5 m/s | 170 km/s |
| NGC 7793 | 1.85e20 | 8.0e39 | 6.16275e-21κ ≈ (2 / 1.85e20) * ln(9.5e+4 / 5.3722e+4) ≈ 6.16275e-21 m^-1 | 🛑 53.72 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 8.0e39 / 1.85e20) ≈ 5.3722e+4 m/s | ✅ 95 km/sv_model ≈ 5.3722e+4 * exp((6.16275e-21 * 1.85e20)/2) ≈ 9.5e+4 m/s | 95 km/s |
| IC 2574 | 2.16e20 | 3.0e39 | 7.0226e-21κ ≈ (2 / 2.16e20) * ln(6.5e+4 / 3.04458e+4) ≈ 7.0226e-21 m^-1 | 🛑 30.45 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 3.0e39 / 2.16e20) ≈ 3.04458e+4 m/s | ✅ 65 km/sv_model ≈ 3.04458e+4 * exp((7.0226e-21 * 2.16e20)/2) ≈ 6.5e+4 m/s | 65 km/s |
| DDO 154 | 1.85e20 | 1.0e39 | 1.0464e-20κ ≈ (2 / 1.85e20) * ln(5e+4 / 1.89936e+4) ≈ 1.0464e-20 m^-1 | 🛑 18.99 km/sv_N ≈ sqrt(6.674e-11 * 1.0e39 / 1.85e20) ≈ 1.89936e+4 m/s | ✅ 50 km/sv_model ≈ 1.89936e+4 * exp((1.0464e-20 * 1.85e20)/2) ≈ 5e+4 m/s | 50 km/s |
The next question is whether this same curvature term applies to light as well as mass. Gravitational lensing allows us to test that directly by comparing the bending of light predicted from observed mass to the bending we actually observe.
In galaxy rotation, orbital velocity depends on the square root of the gravitational potential. This means the κ effect shows up as a factor of exp(κ·r / 2). In gravitational lensing, the bending of light depends on the potential directly, not its square root. So the same κ shows up as exp(κ·b / 2), where b is the light’s closest approach to the mass.
| Lens | M (kg) | b (m) | α_GR (arcsec) | κ (m⁻¹) | e^(κ b/2) | α_model (arcsec) | α_obs (arcsec) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abell 1689 (cluster) | 2.0e45 | 3.0e21 | 🛑 408.45″ α_GR = 4GM/(c²b) → 0.001980220393 rad | -1.47047e-21 | 1.10173e-1 | ✅ 45″ α_model = α_GR · e^(κb/2) → 0.000218166156 rad | 45″ |
| Bullet Cluster 1E 0657-558 | 2.0e45 | 4.5e21 | 🛑 272.3″ α_GR = 4GM/(c²b) → 0.001320146929 rad | -1.01098e-21 | 1.02828e-1 | ✅ 28″ α_model = α_GR · e^(κb/2) → 0.000135747831 rad | 28″ |
| MACS J1149.5+2223 (cluster) | 1.0e45 | 3.6e21 | 🛑 170.187″ α_GR = 4GM/(c²b) → 0.000825091830 rad | -1.13659e-21 | 1.29269e-1 | ✅ 22″ α_model = α_GR · e^(κb/2) → 0.000106659010 rad | 22″ |
| SDSS J1004+4112 (quad QSO, cluster-scale lens) | 3.0e44 | 6.5e20 | 🛑 282.773″ α_GR = 4GM/(c²b) → 0.001370921811 rad | -9.24796e-21 | 4.95097e-2 | ✅ 14″ α_model = α_GR · e^(κb/2) → 0.000067873915 rad | 14″ |
where
Gravitational lensing depends on the gravitational potential and increased κ multiplies the bending angle. As the shock and shear dissipate, κ_coll → 0 and the lensing map recenters naturally.
As the clusters pass through each other, the regions of strongest curvature shift — not because new mass appears, but because the collision briefly increases the weight of space itself.
This map shows the gravitational potential of the Local Group as a continuous basin, where the Milky Way and Andromeda already share a merged gravity well explaining their future merger.
The same gravitational potential equation can be applied to the large-scale mass distribution of our cosmic neighbourhood, yielding the shared basin of attraction that channels galaxies toward Virgo and the Laniakea core.
Φ uses the same κ factor as rotation/lensing: higher κ deepens wells over large d.
Flow arrows trace **infall** toward attractors (Laniakea core, Virgo, Shapley, etc.).
Use span ≈ **300–400 Mpc** to view the larger context; **120–200 Mpc** for Local Group + Virgo.
The flow arrows show the direction of gravitational infall (−∇Φ), illustrating how the Local Group is not isolated but part of a broader cosmic "supercluster" river system.
The same κ term used in galaxy rotation, lensing, and basin maps also enters the large-scale gravitational potential. When averaged over cosmological distances—dominated by voids rather than dense structures—it produces a small net positive contribution to the integrated potential: an emergent large-scale acceleration.
For large radii, expanding the exponential gives an effective acceleration
so that κ contributes a small outward term proportional to κ on large scales. When this contribution is averaged over the cosmic web, it acts in the same direction as a cosmological constant, but arises from structure rather than vacuum energy.
In a homogeneous background, the large-scale effect of κ can be summarised as an additional acceleration term in the Friedmann equation:
where 𝒜κ is an effective contribution generated by the large-scale κ field. For a representative background value κ₀ ≈ 2.6×10−26 m−1 (from supercluster flows), the associated acceleration scale 𝒜κ is of the same order of magnitude as the late-time acceleration usually attributed to Λ in ΛCDM.
In this view, the observed cosmic acceleration emerges from the cumulative effect of structure-dependent curvature, not from a fundamental vacuum energy term.
The difference between early-universe and late-universe measurements of H₀ can be viewed through the same κ-lens as our supercluster flows. Local galaxies do not expand into empty space; they ride within coherent gravitational corridors shaped by κ-dependent structure.
Within these overdense regions, the effective expansion rate is slightly enhanced:
where β ≈ 1–2 parameterises how strongly local κ-dependent flows couple to the global expansion.
For a representative κ ≈ 8×10−4 Mpc−1(corresponding to κ₀ ≈ 2.6×10−26 m−1) and rlocal ≈ 100 Mpc with β ≈ 1.1:
This illustrates that the same κ–driven structural acceleration that shapes basin and supercluster flows can naturally generate a 5–10% enhancement in the locally inferred H₀, comparable to the Planck–SH₀ES tension.
Using the same gravitational potential, the acoustic angular scale of the CMB is:
θ_* ≈ 144.6 Mpc / 13.9 Gpc ≈ 0.0104 rad ≈ 0.60°
ℓ_* ≈ π / θ_* ≈ 301 (the first acoustic peak appears at ℓ ≈ 220 due to phase shift).
Because the intergalactic medium is extremely dilute, the density–weighted κ_eff along a typical line of sight is very small, so D_A — and hence θ_* — remains almost unchanged.
With a void–dominated line of sight:
κ_eff ≈ 3×10⁻²⁹ m⁻¹ and L ≈ 4.3×10²⁶ m → ½ κ_eff L ≈ 0.0065, so D_A^(κ) / D_A ≈ exp(0.0065) ≈ **1.0065** (≈ +0.65%).
Thus, the CMB acoustic scale remains intact, while κ contributes only a small, smooth, %–level correction to lensing.
Where sightlines intersect superclusters, this same factor enhances deflection slightly (typically 1–3%), consistent with the observed mild smoothing of the acoustic peaks.
On Solar-System scales, any modification of gravity must reduce to the standard post-Newtonian form tested by planetary orbits and light deflection. In the κ–r framework this can be achieved by treating the κ-response as a very small correction to the time–time component of the metric.
With κ₀ at this level, the extra κ₀ r term in gtt is completely negligible on Solar-System scales, so the standard post-Newtonian parameters remain indistinguishable from their GR values within current bounds, while still allowing a small cumulative effect from κ₀ on cosmological scales.
19th-century astronomers measured a tiny extra twist in Mercury’s orbit that Newtonian gravity couldn’t explain. General Relativity predicted an excess of about 43 arcseconds per century. The κ–r geometry matches the same result locally (with no extra parameters), and any cosmological bias from κ0 is far below detectability.
| Quantity | Symbol / Formula | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Semi-major axis | a = rp/(1−e) | 0.387073 AU (5.791e+10 m) |
| Orbits per century | 36525 / 87.9691 | 415.2 |
| Per-orbit GR precession | 0.10355″ / orbit | |
| GR per century | ΔφGR × (orbits/century) | 42.996″ / century |
| κ0 correction | × (1 + κ0 a) | 1.00000 |
| Predicted precession | 42.996″ / century | |
Observed excess (over Newtonian/perturbative precession): ≈ 43.0″/century. With κ0=0 this panel reproduces the GR value. For κ0≈2.6×10⁻²⁶ m⁻¹, the additional shift is ~10⁻⁴″/century — below current detectability.
The κ–response used for galaxies and clusters can also be applied to small bodies passing through the inner Solar System. In the present model,
with κ₀ ≈ 2.6×10⁻²⁶ m⁻¹, kᵥ ≈ 5×10⁻²⁶ m⁻¹ and ρ₀ = 1600 kg m⁻³. For a Keplerian profile v(r) = √(GM⊙/r) one has |∂v/∂r| = v/(2r), and for a representative interplanetary density ρ(1 AU) ≈ 10⁻¹⁹ kg m⁻³ scaling as 1/r², the resulting κ(r) at the heliocentric distances of 1I/ʻOumuamua, 2I/Borisov and 3I/Atlas is:
The effective solar acceleration is then
so that the fractional correction Δa/a is at most ≈ 3×10⁻⁸ for ʻOumuamua and much smaller for 2I/Borisov and 3I/Atlas. In the current κ(r) model the impact of κ on inner–Solar–System dynamics is thereforewell below present observational precision, while remaining large enough on galactic and cluster scales to account for rotation curves and lensing without dark matter.
Gravitational waves are one of our sharpest tests of gravity. In the κ–r geometry, present–day signals from neutron star and black hole mergers are indistinguishable from GR, while the same curvature response predicts enhanced primordial waves in the very early universe.
Neutron–star and black–hole binaries live in regions where κ r ≪ 1, so the exponential factor is essentially unity.
Phase evolution, chirp mass and waveform shape reduce to standard GR:
For GW170817–like systems, the κ–r model reproduces a strain of h ∼ 4×10⁻²¹, matching LIGO/Virgo observations.
In the very early universe, densities and velocity gradients drive κ(r) to much larger values, so κ r ≳ 1.
The same factor that is negligible today becomes important:
This predicts a modest enhancement of the primordial gravitational–wave background and associated CMB B–modes, providing a clean target for future missions.
Today's detectors therefore see GR–exact waveforms, while the earliest gravitational waves are subtly reshaped by κ(r). The κ–r model passes current tests and makes falsifiable predictions for primordial signals.
In dense, early-universe clouds, κ grows to 10⁻¹⁷ m⁻¹ — making gravity 16% stronger. Collapse accelerates. Accretion explodes. A 10⁹ M⊙ black hole forms in under 10 million years.
Imagine a fully loaded baseball diamond of neutron stars — four 1.4 M⊙ stars at the corners, 100,000 meters apart. Each packed with ρ ≈ 6.0 × 10¹⁷ kg/m³.
The central acceleration jumps from 0.85 m/s² to 0.99 m/s² — enough to trigger Schwarzschild collapse in under 1.5 km.
This shows how κ amplifies collapse in dense environments — the same mechanism that drives rapid SMBH formation in the early universe.
See PDF Section 3.4.1: "The TOV Baseball"
If κ encodes structure at every scale, where does that structure end?
What happens when r → ℓ_P — the quantum domain where mass and weight separate?
At Planck scales, κ loses leverage. Curvature decouples from structure.
The exponential vanishes, restoring the unweighted Newtonian (and GR) potential.
Energy gain vanishes at small r — but seeds the first structure at larger scales.
Scale: r = 1.00e-35 m
κ r = 0.000000
eκr = 1.000000
Planck Scale
κ → 0: Pure GR
The transition defines a natural cutoff: below it, mass is inertial; above it, it carries geometric weight.
See PDF §3.8: "Quantum Scale Indications"
The rest–energy relation E = mc² remains unchanged in the κ–model. Mass retains its inertial role. What changes is how energy couples to curvature. The effective gravitational mass acquires a scale–dependent weight through the factor exp(κ·r).
This introduces a distinction between inertial mass and gravitational mass without altering local special relativistic physics. At small radii, the exponential term approaches unity.
At galactic and cluster scales, the κ-term enhances gravitational interactions by weighting energy according to local density and shear. At quantum scales, the weighting disappears, and the conventional mass–energy equivalence governs the dynamics.
See Appendix A.6: “Mass–Energy Equivalence Under κ(r)”
This appendix outlines the main steps behind the κ–modified gravity equations used in the text. Each derivation is shown in a compact, weak–field form suitable for galaxies, clusters, and large–scale structure. The starting point is an exponential f(R) action: Varying this action with respect to the metric gμν gives the modified field equations: where f(R) = R e\alpha R and In the weak–field regime relevant for galaxies and clusters, the curvature is small and |αR| ≪ 1. The exponential then admits the series expansion: To leading order, the corrections appear as small, R–dependent terms in the effective Poisson equation. Solving the modified field equations for a static, spherically symmetric mass M yields an effective potential that can be written in the form where κ collects the weak–field imprint of the exponential curvature term and depends on the local configuration of matter. The corresponding radial acceleration is This is the universal κ–modified law used throughout the main text. For a test mass on a circular orbit of radius r around mass M, the centripetal acceleration is v² / r. Equating this to the κ–modified gravitational acceleration gives: Solving for vκ: The Newtonian prediction from baryonic mass alone is The ratio between the observed orbital speed vobs(r) and the Newtonian prediction defines an empirical κ at radius r: Solving this relation for κ(r) gives: This expression is used to derive κ(r) directly from rotation curve data, without assuming any dark matter halo. The environmental model κ(r) in the main text is then fitted to these inferred κ values. In standard General Relativity, the deflection angle for a light ray passing a mass M with impact parameter b is In the κ model, the same exponential correction that modifies the potential also modifies the lensing deflection. In the weak–field limit, the effective deflection angle can be written as For κb ≪ 1, this reduces to showing that κ introduces a small, scale–dependent enhancement to lensing without changing the underlying baryonic mass. The geometric origin suggests that κ should depend on local structure. A simple observationally–motivated form used in the main text is Here: The cubic dependence on the velocity gradient emphasises regions with strong shear (for example, spiral arms or shocked gas in cluster mergers), while the square–root dependence on density captures the enhanced curvature in compressed structures relative to diffuse environments. When κ(r) defined this way is inserted back into the expressions for vκ and αeff, the resulting predictions match observed rotation curves and lensing profiles across a wide range of systems using only baryonic matter. On very large scales, κ is dominated by the average properties of the cosmic web: voids, filaments, walls, and superclusters. In this regime, κ can be approximated by a slowly varying background value κ₀. In a homogeneous background, the κ–modified gravitational response appears as an additive term in the acceleration equation, where 𝔄(κ₀) is an effective acceleration term built from the large–scale κ field. For suitable choices of κ₀ consistent with structure formation, this term can mimic a small, positive late–time acceleration similar in magnitude to the observed cosmological constant, without introducing a separate dark energy fluid. The detailed identification of 𝔄(κ₀) with a specific Λ–like parameter depends on the averaging scheme and lies beyond the weak–field derivations used for galaxies and clusters, but the qualitative behaviour follows directly from the same κ–dependent correction to the potential. We start from the κ–weighted potential used in the main text: Here \\(\\kappa(r)\\) encodes the response of gravity to large–scale structure (background curvature, shear, and density). To understand the behaviour near the quantum limit, we examine \\(r \\to \\ell_P\\), where the Planck length \\(\\ell_P\\) is the characteristic scale below which classical structure is no longer resolved. For any finite \\(\\kappa(r)\\), the exponential admits a Taylor expansion around \\(r = 0\\): Substituting into \(\Phi_{\kappa}(r)\) gives: Expanding term by term: The leading term is the usual Newtonian potential \\(-GM/r\\). The \\(\\kappa\\)-dependent terms are finite or vanish as \\(r \\to 0\\), so the short–distance \\(1/r\\) structure of gravity is unchanged. In the κ–r model, \\(\\kappa(r)\\) is an effective parameter built from coarse–grained structure: At Planck scales, matter distribution is effectively homogeneous and gradients vanish. Therefore: And the κ–weighted potential reduces to: Expanding for small r: Giving the limit: κ acts as a structural modifier: it vanishes when structure cannot be resolved (Planck scale) and grows when gradients, density contrasts, and shear appear on macroscopic scales. Below the Planck scale, gravity reverts to its standard form. Above it, κ encodes geometric weight. In the κ–modified weak–field limit, the effective gravitational potential takes the form Differentiating gives the radial acceleration: This may be interpreted as the usual Newtonian term multiplied by a scale–dependent gravitational weight. Writing Inertial mass remains unchanged, so the rest–energy relation At small radii, the weighting disappears and the standard expression is recovered: This establishes a scale–dependent distinction between inertial and gravitational mass without altering local special–relativistic physics. Energy retains its inertial identity, while its gravitational influence varies with structure through κ(r).1. Exponential potential from modified curvature
2. Orbital velocity and κ from rotation curves
3. Gravitational lensing with κ
4. Environmental κ(r) from shear and density
κ₀ — background curvature term
kᵥ — shear–response coefficient
∂v/∂r — local velocity gradient (shear)
ρ / ρ₀ — density relative to a fiducial scale5. Large–scale κ and an effective acceleration term
6. Quantum limit of κ
6.1 Small–r expansion of the exponential
6.2 κ sourced by macroscopic structure
6.3 κ–weighted mass–energy
6.4 Interpretation
A.7 — Mass–Energy Equivalence Under κ(r)
mgrav = m · e^κ r reproduces the same force law.E = mc² holds exactly. The gravitational contribution to the energy, however, acquires the same weight:
Full derivations, MCMC fits, and code at: